Those who advocate for gun-free zones argue that these zones increase safety. But then the question becomes, safety from whom?

Safety from criminals? By definition, a criminal breaks laws. Therefore, by definition, criminals will not abide by rules set in gun-free zones. All a gun-free zone does is disarm those who abide by these laws. A gun-free zone will protect you from a criminal as much as a “no stealing” sign will protect your valuables at your home.

Safety from others who intend to shoot people? Again, if these people intend to shoot at others, they, by definition, are criminals. And criminals do not follow any set of rules given to them.

In fact, these so-called gun-free zones are counterproductive. A study by CPRC found that 92 percent of all public mass shootings are done in gun-free zones – a statistic that is getting increasingly more difficult to ignore.

Logically, this statistic makes sense. Mass shooters seek the highest death toll possible. Therefore, shooters will most likely target areas where law-abiding citizens are disarmed and unable to defend themselves. Shooters tend to shy away from areas with conceal carry laws than from areas without gun laws at all.

Additionally, mass shootings that are attempted in pro-gun areas are stopped before the shooter even gets close to killing four people. Therefore, those who attempt mass shootings in pro-gun zones never turn into mass shootings. This theory is supported by an article written by John Lott in National Review, where he cites instances where mass shootings have been stopped because of law-abiding gun-owning citizens.

While this is all true, many cite the counterpoint that 92 percent of mass shootings – public and private – do not occur in gun-free zones. Statistics have shown that, in some cases, less than half occur in gun-free zones, while the other half do not.

However, a statistic like this is extremely misleading. A majority of mass shootings occur in private homes. These private homes are not technically classified as gun-free zones. However, those that are killed are still completely defenseless. Therefore, while they technically reside in pro-gun areas, there’s still no chance for the victims to defend themselves.

This is also partially why the 92% only includes public mass shootings, since once you factor out these misleading private shootings at home, the statistic becomes reality.

I am not pushing for more guns, nor am I pushing for stricter gun control. I am simply stating that a country must either be 100% pro-second amendment, or 100% pro-gun control.